United States of Corporate America

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The number of votes garnered through unethical means is impossible to verify one way or the other

Therefore, all we have is the fact that the DNC colluded with members of the mainstream media specifically to help Clinton win the democratic primary. That is direct evidence of the primary being rigged.

We can argue about the degree until the cows come home, the fact is, it was rigged and democracy was subverted.
Click to expand...
LOL

You make a mountain of a mole hill. Millions of people don't change their vote because of a leaked but obvious question. If by rigged you claim the primary was stolen by Clinton then you are wrong. That's simply not true.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
LOL

You make a mountain of a mole hill. Millions of people don't change their vote because of a leaked but obvious question. If by rigged you claim the primary was stolen by Clinton then you are wrong. That's simply not true.
Click to expand...
donna brazile didn't even leak a question to her. she told her what questions could be asked. many, many questions. most were not even asked.

there is no "there" there.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I'll remind you of how we started discussing this claim of rigged primary. It was my reply to this post of YOURS


I showed you that there IS history of that kind of vote fraud where millions of votes are changed but in those cases, the fraud was massive ballot stuffing or voter intimidation or just plain fraud. I point out that there were tons of false media stories and outright lies and still the general election was pretty close and not out of line with polling data early in the election cycle. I say this to show that I'm not just making up my denial of your assertion. You must know that proving a negative is almost impossible. I ask you to prove a positive, which should be possible if you are correct. I will point out that you are claiming about four million people switched their vote because the DNC and Clinton campaign colluded. I'm asking YOU to prove that claim. Given the size of the fraud that you claim happened, it shouldn't be that hard.
Click to expand...

the democratics don't deny it. The chair resigned and they apologized.
http://fair.org/home/with-dnc-leaks-former-conspiracy-theory-is-now-true-and-no-big-deal/

"While it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race, we now know beyond any doubt that such a bias not only existed, but was endemic and widespread. DNC officials worked to plant pro-Clinton stories, floated the idea of using Sanders’ secular Judaism against him in the South, and routinely ran PR spin for Clinton, even as the DNC claimed over and over it was neutral in the primary. The evidence in the leaks was so clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned her role as DNC chair—after her speaking role at the Democratic National Convention this week was scrapped —while DNC co-chair Donna Brazile, who is replacing Wasserman Schultz in the top role, has apologized to the Sanders camp."

Did they do something unethical for no reason, that they knew would it not make a bit of difference but did it anyway?

If the argument is that Clinton was too far ahead for any of it to matter, then that would make them either incompetent or devious. Incompetent because bright people know there is no point in doing something unethical when there is no benefit to be gotten. Or devious because knowing it wouldn't matter, did it anyway just to be sure. Which means they don't even have to be provoked or even have compelling reasons to be unethical, it's just part of their fabric.

so we can assume they thought there would be a benefit to it regardless of lead.

If they thought it was of benefit, who are we to argue?


The fact that ballot stuffing and other direct fraud often produces double debit margins of victory means nothing in this case. it doesn't preclude anything from happening.

your claim is that a 12% margin of victory is too large for the type of collusion that was leveled at Sanders to make a difference.

what margin would you find plausible? would you say something more like 3% or less, maybe 4?
If Bernie had lost by 4% would you still have used the same argument?

That leaves only 9% maybe 8% to account for.


You don't think a party sandbagging one person could swing 8% percent of votes away from that person?

Also bare in mind that since this was a two person race, a swing is two fold. To get an 8% advantage you only need to win 4% of the other side's voters.

Her 12 point victory was only a 6 point swing.
Your own party leadership actively working against you in favor of another candidate could easily cost you 5% or so of the vote, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
Did the Russians really " hack" the DNC or was it just some dumb fuck that clicked on a Phishing email? I bet that numbnuts Podesta fell for the Nigerian Prince scam too.

I hate our government, they are despicable, we meddle and spy and hack and topple regimes, what goes around comes around..I don't care how anything got exposed, transparency is ALWAYS good IMO.. FWIW~ Assange says it is a U.S. leak, not sure I believe him or really care.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
the democratics don't deny it. The chair resigned and they apologized.
http://fair.org/home/with-dnc-leaks-former-conspiracy-theory-is-now-true-and-no-big-deal/

"While it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race, we now know beyond any doubt that such a bias not only existed, but was endemic and widespread. DNC officials worked to plant pro-Clinton stories, floated the idea of using Sanders’ secular Judaism against him in the South, and routinely ran PR spin for Clinton, even as the DNC claimed over and over it was neutral in the primary. The evidence in the leaks was so clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned her role as DNC chair—after her speaking role at the Democratic National Convention this week was scrapped —while DNC co-chair Donna Brazile, who is replacing Wasserman Schultz in the top role, has apologized to the Sanders camp."

Did they do something unethical for no reason, that they knew would it not make a bit of difference but did it anyway?

If the argument is that Clinton was too far ahead for any of it to matter, then that would make them either incompetent or devious. Incompetent because bright people know there is no point in doing something unethical when there is no benefit to be gotten. Or devious because knowing it wouldn't matter, did it anyway just to be sure. Which means they don't even having to be provoked or even have compelling reasons to be unethical, it's just part of their fabric.

so we can assume they thought there would be a benefit to it regardless of lead.

If they thought it was of benefit, who are we to argue?


The fact that ballot stuffing and other direct fraud often produces double debit margins of victory means nothing in this case. it doesn't preclude anything from happening.

your claim is that a 12% margin of victory is too large for the type of collusion that was leveled at Sanders to make a difference.

what margin would you find plausible? would you say something more like 3% or less, maybe 4?
That leaves only 9% maybe 8% to account for.

If Bernie had lost by 4% would you still have used the same argument?


You don't think a party sandbagging one person could swing 8% percent of votes away from that person?

Also bare in mind that since this was a two person race, a swing is two fold. To get an 8% advantage you only need to win 4% of the other side's voters.

Her 12 point victory was only a 6 point swing.
Your own party leadership actively working against you in favor of another candidate could easily cost you 5% or so of the vote, don't you think?
Click to expand...
What you voice is a complaint that some people in the DNC acted improperly. I asked before and will ask again. Have you read the memos from the DNC on this? They are banal. Absolutely they were written by incompetents.

The question is not "did they act improperly" They did.

What I'm taking issue with is this idea that the election was invalid. From a legal point of view, there would have to be proof that the actions of the DNC did steal away four million votes. That has not been proven.

If you want to look backward on the past election and claim it was invalid then prove it. If you want to talk about changes going forward to make our election system better then I'm all for that.
 
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What you voice is a complaint that some people in the DNC acted improperly. I asked before and will ask again. Have you read the memos from the DNC on this? They are banal. Absolutely they were written by incompetents.

The question is not "did they act improperly" They did.

What I'm taking issue with is this idea that the election was invalid. From a legal point of view, there would have to be proof that the actions of the DNC did steal away four million votes. That has not been proven.

If you want to look backward on the past election and claim it was invalid then prove it. If you want to talk about changes going forward to make our election system better then I'm all for that.
Click to expand...
Fogdog said:
What you voice is a complaint that some people in the DNC acted improperly. I asked before and will ask again. Have you read the memos from the DNC on this? They are banal. Absolutely they were written by incompetents.

The question is not "did they act improperly" They did.

What I'm taking issue with is this idea that the election was invalid. From a legal point of view, there would have to be proof that the actions of the DNC did steal away four million votes. That has not been proven.

If you want to look backward on the past election and claim it was invalid then prove it. If you want to talk about changes going forward to make our election system better then I'm all for that.
Click to expand...
you were saying that 12% was too big a margin for what the DNC did to make a difference, right?

I am refuting your argument that 12% was too big.

I was just showing how that isn't the case.

Of course there is no proof, to ask for that is ridiculous because it goes without saying it is his opinion and not a provable fact.

just because there is no proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. it's his theory that the DNC cost Bernie the election, you took to refuting that theory, I refuted yours.

it's not far fetched to think it did cost Bernie and we know it is not provable.
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
Make election system better, you say? I've got a few ideas.

1. Disband the electoral college, it serves no purpose. I've said this since 6th grade.

2. Get rid of delegates and super delegates and the caucus system.

3. The entire Country voting on one day is ridiculous, there should be a voting week spread over 5 days.

4. Get lobbyists and corporate slugs campaign cash out of elections.

5. Everyone who votes receives 50$ ..that will ensure extremely high voter turnout.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MisterBouncyBounce said:
you were saying that 12% was too big a margin for what the DNC did to make a difference, right?

I am refuting your argument that 12% was too big.

I was just showing how that isn't the case.

Of course there is no proof, to ask for that is ridiculous because it goes without saying it is his opinion and not a provable fact.

just because there is no proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. it's his theory that the DNC cost Bernie the election, you took to refuting that theory, I refuted yours.

it's not far fetched to think it did cost Bernie and we know it is not provable.
Click to expand...
You and I are reading the same words, right?

"it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race"

The quote goes on to describe moral outrage. If you want to claim moral outrage then I'm sympathetic. The question I ask you is, so what? If you want to claim the election is invalid then obviously there is a higher standard of proof for that. In your own post, you say it can't be proven.

I don't even think we have a disagreement.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
Make election system better, you say? I've got a few ideas.

1. Disband the electoral college, it serves no purpose. I've said this since 6th grade.

2. Get rid of delegates and super delegates and the caucus system.

3. The entire Country voting on one day is ridiculous, there should be a voting week spread over 5 days.

4. Get lobbyists and corporate slugs campaign cash out of elections.

5. Everyone who votes receives 50$ ..that will ensure extremely high voter turnout.
Click to expand...
$50.00?

Somebody owes me a lot of money since 1972!
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
I'm sure people think 6-8 billion is absurd, ( ballpark figure) I disagree... We pissed away 7 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a huge problem when 40% of the country isn't voting.
Click to expand...
6.5 billion this year would be the cost. 13 billion assuming 50% turn out.

I'd be willing to consider funding that. But the side that benefits from low turn out and voter suppression won't.
And for $50., some people would be trying to vote more than once. Money corrupts.

edit: and remember, you'd be paying yourself. $50 comes from taxes unless there's someone else paying.
 
Last edited:
MisterBouncyBounce

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
Corso312 said:
I'm sure people think 6-8 billion is absurd, ( ballpark figure) I disagree... We pissed away 7 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a huge problem when 40% of the country isn't voting.
Click to expand...
That would be nothing with a system in which sanity prevailed.

I don't think most people realize just how much better off society can be if we were actually ruling ourselves.

We can feed the entire world a dozen times over. in reality we don't have to work for much of a living. I can go on about how the masses don't get the most benefits from the technology they develop, but that's for another time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top